BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[centurian]

It's pretty clear that all the valid points made here over time about HMRC behaviour and the like don't wash with the courts

I never thought it ever would - and was surprised to see the argument getting so much time. I know its frustrating to see HMRC behave the way they have, but as far as the courts are concerned, that's a disclipinary matter within the civil service. It doesn't affect the legislation that was passed by parliament.

[Ganymede]

Into the distance

Lifting my head from all the current dismay/gloom and looking ahead..........SC Europe...........Tax Courts.......

In view of the retrospective nature of the current position. How can it be claimed that HMRC didn't raise an assessment with the stated 12 months after the return and so are 'out of time' If they are now able to collect tax from 7/8 more years ago Its not possible/ they had no need to have raised an assessment before 12 months are out. Will we have that argument?
Can anybody comment please?

[sjw]

If I was Montpelier, and I was just about to embark on another round of hugely costly litigation on behalf of clients, I might not take too kindly to being sued by the same clients.

We used to worry that the dispute they had going with AJ was an unnecessary distraction. However, what you are proposing is in a completely different league and would set us in direct conflict with them.

That would really concern me.

Firstly DR how do we know Montpelier will even take this further? I seem to recall that earlier this year a discussion ensued in which I believe you yourself hinted that Montpelier had indicated that the CoA was probably the end game?

Secondly - do you really feel like a client of Montpelier because I certainly dont. More like a mark.

And finally lets not forget the longer Monteplier keep the ball in the air the more they collect in interest on the money taken in fees - in my case directly in contradiction to the conditions stated in the contract regarding the 4% only taken if HMRC did not challenge the return.

And the longer they put off some of us taking action for being blantantly lied to in the initial consulations - if I'd known the true number taking up the scheme I would have run a country mile. And in response to anyone suggesting I should have performed due dilligence just how was I supposed to find that out? Or that it was already on the HMRC radar?

So forgive me if I dont exactly share your view of whose side Montpelier is on - I already know the answer - their own.

And if I'm wrong then they won't have a problem treating us as true clients and following our wishes to at least ask the question.

[SantaClaus]

It would be quite simple to put a stop to some of the endless to-and-fro'ing of these arguments, if Montpelier would quite simply communicate.
It's understandable that people are upset and looking for alternatives and answers.
Montpelier could put a lot of people at ease by answering a few simple, public domain, questions.
They monitor this forum, so they know people's concerns and they really should try harder.
It wouldn't cost them anything.

Got to agree. Montpelier's silence is deafening.

[RockTheBoat]

Got to agree. Montpelier's silence is deafening.

Everyone needs to calm down here. The judgement was only made yesterday, so realistically MP would only have been legally able to send out any communications today at the earliest. I would think we would be getting an update in the post fairly soon (DR might be able to confirm this)

[RingStinger]

- if I'd known the true number taking up the scheme I would have run a country mile.

And if I'm wrong then they won't have a problem treating us as true clients and following our wishes to at least ask the question.

So what are you saying? there were too many doing the scheme or not enough? If you knew that 2500 were doing it, then you would've passed? Personally the more doing it the better - safety in numbers and all that.

You've had a lot to say today. If you feel so strongly, then away you go. Go sue MP. Good luck, and shut the door on your way out. In fact, why not go and start your own dedicated thread?

I for one, and many others on here, will continue to rely on MP. As has been said countless times, a challenge to the SC was to be expected so there are still no great shocks.

I've mentioned BN66, IOM DTA's etc etc to other tax advisors and I sort of get a 'Errrmmmm.... yeah......' They haven't a clue, and for that reason alone makes me think that MP are still best placed to act on our behalf. Taking alternative tax advice at a time like this? No chance.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Here here DR. As I said in a much earlier post, if you want to do that, then if I wereMP, I would think to let you all do as you please and figure it out yourselves. You may not invite MP round for dinner but I for one would not attack them. We've got enough on our plate as it is without making more enemies.

Agreed. Now seems like an odd time to attempt to have a go at the ones fighting the case for us, no matter what anyone thinks of them, there's no-one else. I think they should get something out, even if it's only a statement to say they will be releasing a statement though. Silence only fuels the anxiety and anger.

[moro]

Got to agree. Montpelier's silence is deafening.

I'm not much of a poster on here, but believe me I have been following this avidly since before the first court case.

I'd like more communications from MP too; but I'm in this for the long haul and hope MP appeal this to the SC, otherwise HMRC will come knocking real soon...and I'd rather pay up later than sooner, although of course my preference is not to pay at all!

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

It may surprise you to know that Brillo was with us in Court yesterday and in good form.

I know I told him about the court date !! ..was due to meet him there as I was with him during the Parker debacle

[ONO]

Letters from MP

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone has received a letter from MP regarding the latest developments yet?